The Instigator
Sahaj
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,509 times Debate No: 18914
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Sahaj

Con

In the old days, scientists could not explain natural phenomena, so 'god' was created as the answer to questions like 'where did humans come from?'. God was also used as somewhere to place the blame when people did not want to accept responsibility for something. God was even used as an excuse for more power, like in the case of Charles I of England. Now, however, we can scientifically explain natural phenomena, and answer questions like 'where did humans come from'. Though the existence of god has not been disproved (yet), most, if not all, of the things attributed to him have been scientifically explained, therefore i put it to you that god doe not exist, and it is time we accepted that fact.
KRFournier

Pro

The resolution is in the form of an interrogative, "Does God Exist?" As such, the resolution is neutral in terms of burden of proof, and we will share equally in that burden. I am answering the question in the affirmative.

The Cosmological Argument for God's Existence.

I offer my argument in the form of a simple syllogism, as I intend only to expand those points my opponent chooses to rebut.

First, the argument that the universe has a cause:
  • P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
  • P2: The universe began to exist.
  • C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Second, the argument that the cause was a personal creator:
  • P1: The first cause must be eternal.
  • P2: All eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal.
  • C: The universe was caused by a personal creator.
A personal creator, in this case, is synonymous with God.

Rebuttal

Con's argument is fallacious from start to finish.

In the old days, scientists could not explain natural phenomena, so 'god' was created as the answer to questions like 'where did humans come from?'.
  • Question Begging Fallacy. It cannot be said that God was fabricated until God has already been proven not to exist.
God was also used as somewhere to place the blame when people did not want to accept responsibility for something. God was even used as an excuse for more power, like in the case of Charles I of England.
  • Guilt by Association Fallacy. What a believer in God does is irrelevant to the reality of God's existence.
Now, however, we can scientifically explain natural phenomena, and answer questions like 'where did humans come from'.
  • Question Begging Fallacy. Presupposes the answer to the question "Where did humans come from," must have a natural answer, which prematurely excludes the possibility of answering that question, "from God." Furthermore, science can only answer natural questions, so regardless of science's conclusions on the nature of human origin, it is irrelevent when arguing for God's existence, for the question of God's existence is metaphysical, and therefore inaccessible to science.

Conclusion

I have offered a simple arugment to answer the question as "Yes." While my argument is currently devoid of substantiation, it nevertheless is a logical one. I need only make my position more compelling than my opponent's, which is so far totally hollow. My opponent has one round to show why my syllogism is fallacious while simultaneously offering sound reasoning for his own position.
Debate Round No. 1
Sahaj

Con

Please, don't go into abstractions. I am basing my argument on physical evidence, namely that we can disprove nearly everything god was believed to have done. We know not how the universe was created, but we will find out in time. Tell me, if god does exist, why is there so much evil in the world? Why doesn't he set it all right, being omnipotent? And do you mean to say that our destinies are controlled by god? That whatever we do, we must follow the script that is already in place? It is proved that we have the power of choice, opening up multiple dimensions with each choice we make or don't make. We know that we have the power of deciding, but they d=say god has scripted out outr lives, so the existence of god is disproved. I will answer your abstractions with abstractions of my own - you say someone had to create the universe, so that can be counted as proof for god's existence, but proof denies faith, and without faith god is nothing, therefore god cannot exist.
KRFournier

Pro

I will keep this simple. I see no need to defend my previous syllogism as my opponent clearly sees no value in actually debating. Instead, I will once again rebut my opponent's emotionally fueled argument point by point.

Rebuttal

Please, don't go into abstractions.

If you wish to avoid metaphysical discussions, I suggest you avoid topics on God's existence in the future.

I am basing my argument on physical evidence, namely that we can disprove nearly everything god was believed to have done.

What physical evidence? This is just ipse dixit.

We know not how the universe was created, but we will find out in time.

In other words, you have faith in Atheism.

Tell me, if god does exist, why is there so much evil in the world? Why doesn't he set it all right, being omnipotent?

In case this is meant to be the logical Problem of Evil, the refutation is simple. The Problem of Evil asserts there is a logical contradiction given these three premises:

P1. God is all powerful
P2. God is all good
P3. Evil exists

These three premises are in conflict. One of them must logically be removed to make it coherent. However, the refutation is simple: add a fourth premise.

P1. God is all powerful
P2. God is all good
P3. Evil exists
P4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists

There is no logical contradiction in the above four premises. All four of these can now be simultaneously true insofar as logic is concerned. Now, my opponent wants to know why, but frankly, asking "why" is not enough to support his position. I've at least shown that it's not a logical problem.

And do you mean to say that our destinies are controlled by god? That whatever we do, we must follow the script that is already in place? It is proved that we have the power of choice, opening up multiple dimensions with each choice we make or don't make. We know that we have the power of deciding, but they d=say god has scripted out outr [sic] lives, so the existence of god is disproved.

There are plenty of atheists that argue against free will, saying that it is illusory. So, what "proof" do you have that free will is a reality other than just stating as such. Once again, ipse dixit.

I will answer your abstractions with abstractions of my own - you say someone had to create the universe, so that can be counted as proof for god's existence, but proof denies faith, and without faith god is nothing, therefore god cannot exist.

Faith is not the absence of reason, but the confidence in one's belief. The more reason you have to believe something, the more faith you have in it. For example, you have faith that your car will start when you turn the key, and you have good reason for that faith. However, you can't know with 100% certainty that the car will start. Maybe the battery is dead one morning.

Conversely, you can have complete faith that a particular brick wall doesn't exist, but that faith matters little to the reality that when you attempt to ride your bike through it, you will come to an abrupt (and possibly painful) stop. God's existence is utterly independent of our faith. He either exists or he doesn't.

Conclusion

I have given a simple syllogism that my opponent has blatantly ignored. I ask the voters to set aside their current convictions and give the vote to the better debater.

Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
You misrepresent my argument. Creation is not assumed. Rather, causation is deduced. I am happy to defend this argument in a debate with you.
Posted by uhhhclem 5 years ago
uhhhclem
Let's look at KRFournier's syllogism:

> P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
> P2: The universe began to exist.
> C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Using this as the foundation of one's argument for the existence of God is a perfect example of begging the question. "Of course God exists; after all, nothing can be created without a creator, and we know the universe was created." Except, well, no, we don't. We only "know" that because our argument assumes creation as a premise.

In the terms this syllogism is using, we don't know that the universe began to exist. We don't know that there was ever any time in the past when it didn't.

Our experience of things on the human scale is that things come into existence because they've been created, sure. But you could also just as legitimately argue that if something exists now, it existed a minute ago - something that is also true in our experience of things on the human scale. We've never observed true creation; we've only ever seen transformation.

And if it's always the case that everything that exists also existed a minute ago, it's most reasonable to assume that it has also always been the case. In which case the universe could not have begun existing.
Posted by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
Resolutions are not in the form of a question. The resolution should read, God exists, or God does not exist. - Both have a very difficult burden of proof.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
SahajKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a joke of a debate. Such things should be left in forums. @16kadams hogive con s&g? look at this from R2: "but they d=say god has scripted out outr lives, so the existence of god is disproved."
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SahajKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I think pro did a better job of describing his side of the story
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
SahajKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro completely destroyed Con's entire case...which consisted fallacies of association and avoided metaphysical discussions, and so on. Pro gave a syllogism on the existence of god and managed to disprove Con's assertions (the ipse dixits) with his own logical conclusion...the response that even evil may serve as a good in intention...
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
SahajKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent performance by Pro who completely dismantled Cons case. Pro showed how Cons case was completely built on fallacies, including the same ones he accuses Pro to be guilty of.